Need help with translation of record for tot geb Wilckens

Brenda P Hayward

The transcription may be incorrect in both Ancestry and Family Search. They say this child was born 3 Oct 1842 and was baptised 15 Oct. This is not possible if he was born dead as the margin note indicates. I do not know where the 3 Oct came from, but it looks to me as though this might be a burial record, not a baptism. It would make more sense if the child was born and died on 12 Oct and was buried on the 15th.

What does this record actually say?

This record is from Family Search: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPXY-D599

It is FHL Film Number 1189501, pg 67 #150 on the left-hand page.

Thanks very much for your help with this.

Brenda

Robert Seal_1

The father's occupation is: Altentheiler = Altenteiler = old retired farmer, old farmer on pension; broadly a retired man.

JohnsonGreg

Left Margin: Stillborn

On October 12th, at 11 o'clock midday, a dead son was born to Mathias Wilkens, a ?? in Stinstedt, by his wife Rahel nee Mangels. (interred the 15th of October)

I could not read the occupation of the father. There is no mention of Oct 3rd in entry 150.

Brenda P Hayward

Thank you both for your help on this.

If I had just accepted the Ancestry and FamilySearch index information, I would not have known that it was wrong. So I really appreciate the work that you do in helping researchers like me who do not read German. (Although I am getting better at deciphering some of the words here and there. Sometimes the different scripts defeat me, though.)

Best regards,

Brenda

Robert Seal_1

You're welcome, Brenda. Be aware that FamilySearch indexing is usually of a consistently high standard BUT Ancestry indexing, especially for foreign language records, is notoriously bad. Whenever you have an index entry, it's always best to look at the original record if it is available to you.

Brenda P Hayward

@Robert Seal_1

I agree, Robert. I have generally found that FamilySearch indexing is excellent. That's why when I suspected Ancestry was wrong, I checked FamilySearch (I do this often since as you say, Ancestry is notoriously bad with their indexing). This time, though, apparently both were wrong (I thought usually they each did their own indexing, but maybe not in this instance). It's a good thing the image was available for sure.

I have often found that Ancestry's indexing is wrong even with their English language records. I usually submit a correction when I find those error. I don't know how to do that with FamilySearch though.